tv Charlie Rose WHUT July 6, 2012 3:00am-4:00am EDT
>> welcome to the program, tonight ratan tata chairman of the tata group and judith rodin president of the rockefeller foundation on the occasion of the presentation of the lifetime achievement award from the rockefeller foundation to ratan tata. >> when you live in a country where there's such disparity of income and such disparity and prosperity, you cannot help but feel that you cannot ignore the millions of people that sometimes struggle for just staying alive. in that you need to do something to not to hand out-- but to bring life back to them. so i think what has been
happening in enlightened companies is do something for the communities around where you are operate. >> rose: we conclude this evening with jane harman, former congresswoman from california now president of the woodrow wilson center. >> i think the way to solve the terror threat against us is to win the argument. and how do we win the argument? we have to live our values. we have to show kids who are about to decide whether to strap on a suicide vest that if they don't do that, we are helping to provide opportunity in their countries. >> rose: ratan tata, judith rodin and jane harman when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following:.
>> for almost 100 years the rockefeller foundation has been a world leader in philanthropy and global dome this week they are hosting their second annual innovation forum, leaders from the business, government, and nonprofit sectors gather to address the most pressing-- ratan tata will receive a lifetime achievement award for his work in philanthropy, chairman of the tata group a family run global conglomerate that has been giving back to india since its founding in 1868. since becoming company chairman in 1991 he has run the group's charitable efforts in education, performing arts,al ag development and much more. also joining me judith rodin president of the rockefeller foundation, former president of university of pennsylvania and a powerful voice on innovation in corporate giving and philanthropy, i'm especially pleased to have both of them at this table not only to talk about the foundation and conference but also this remarkable man and friend of mine who sits to my left.
welcomement congratulations. >> thank you, charlie. >> so why did we choose, why did you choose, why did rockefeller close him for this recipient of a lifetime achievement award? >> rock fell frere its founding has been interested in -- >> there going to be embarrassing for you, i warn you. >> innovation and how to bring innovation in philanthropy and how to bring innovation to philanthropy. and i can't imagine any one who better embodies as a family, as a company, as an individual that notion. the family innovated early taking corporate profits and building trust and using them for philanthropic good to give back to the citizens of their country and really help to lift people out of poverty. they have innovated in their businesses, in ways that focus on every one but don't forget the people at the bottom. so i think mr. tata watching seven people perched on a
motor scooter probably saw one accident too many and innovated the nano, the idea that you could for low cost give these families more safety, make the environment better so hon and on and on. but i think so much of business now is starting to think about how do we volume of past corporate social responsible. how do we really start thinking about the stakeholders, not just the shareholders. and i think ratan tatan wrote the book. >> rose: how did you come to this, i mean in a sense, you went to cornell by the way. >> yes. >> rose: and set out to be an architect, by the way, right? >> that's right. >> rose: but you went back. >> yeah. >> rose: where did you develop this sense of the family's commitment to give back? >> well, when i entered the family business which is an accident, i was going to
live the rest of my life in the united states. >> yeah. >> and called back because pie grandmother was ill. and when i joined i realized that this was just in the dna of the company. and when you live in a country where there's such disparity of income and such disparity in prosperity, you cannot help but feel that you cannot ignore the millions of people that sometimes struggle for just staying alive. in that you need to do something to not to hand out doles but to bring life back to them so i think what has been happening in enlightened companies is do something for the communities around where you
operate and then in the ripple effect, go on, go on by. if you take our foundations and our companies we, we distribute about four and a half percent of our net profit in philanthropic activity. >> rose: 4.5% of net profit. >> yeah. >> rose: let me come back to rockefeller. so here you are celebrating the centennial. >> right. >> rose: tell me about the own vacation conference and what's going to take place there. because we were just referencing before we started here the sort of three-day kind of emphasis on paper and manufacturing. >> the idea is innovation used to occur only in a laboratory or in an r & d space. and what we've seen over the last several years is that that's invasion and innovation is really the creative application of things you already know but in new ways. so mark zuckerberg didn't
invent the internet, he innovated a new social process that was the innovation, where steve jobs didn't invent touch-screen technology. he innovated how to use touch-screen technology in a new and creative way. so what are the next generation of technologies and can we bring together innovaters from around the world either literally in a convening or virtually because we have people joining us for these sessions from around the world. and can they begin to innovate after understanding these technologies the way that they really could be used to improve lives of poor and vulnerable people around the world. >> are we seeing an exponential usage of digital technology in terms of helping the poor or are we -- >> yet to be determined. so the place we're seeing now is mobile. the explosion of mobile technology. there are more people with cell phones than people with toilets. i mean just as a graphic
comparison. so a lot of the attention at this moment is on how to accelerate the mobile technology to help the poor, whether it's mobile banking or, and held which we're doing a lot of work in. but we want to look at the next new thing and we think it is the digital technologies and how they will be applied. we have one of the inventors who will be showing what he's calling open source hardware. we've talked about open source software a lot but he is actually created technologies that will allow you to do in realtime manufacturing there some local village for what you need. so a doctor has a medical device that he or she needs. they are at some rural village thousands of miles from the local hospital. they can actually now-- will be able to, we think, 3-d manufacturing of the instrument they need onsite in order to treat that patient. it's revolutionary. >> what kinds of things have interested your own curiosity? >> in this innovation
conference. >> there are many because we talked about -- manufacturing. but there's also distance medical, robotic surgery. >> noninvasive surgery. >> minimally invasive. >> rose: yes, right. >> but done at a distance but an expert. looking at a screen that, and not in the same room as the patient. this could revolutionize difficult surgery all over the world. what miss rodin talked about, the ability to communicate and go digitally on a much wider basis, and the ability of people, even uneducated
people to adopt-- to use digital technologies is fantastic. so all of that, i think is areas where you see great opportunities to spread these technologies through the very people that hither too have never had access to them. >> is it going to enable india to make a great leap forward? >> oh, yes, i believe so. >> how will it happen? >> well, let me go back and say in the 70s, india throughout threw out ibm because they refused to manufacture the 360 computer in india. and for many years there was no major computer available in india. an india is sort of was
static. and then it opened up again. and look what happened. india became maybe today a controversial source of it services. >> right. >> from people who who for them computers just recently happened. so the roll that india could have played perhaps if that ban had never been there would have been terrific. and the end hasn't happened. it's going to grow. >> tell me how you see india's biggest problems today i think two, three years are going to be major challenges in india. one is the energy which is infrastructure. but it's going to be one of the stumbling blocks of progress if it's not dealt with. and the other is going to be
water. we have inadequate systems of conserving rainwater when we don't have snow to speak of. so four fifths of our rainwater runs off into the sea. and we're consuming underground water for agriculture. and sooner or later we are really going to have a real problem with water so we need today to have sustainable means of conserving our water, so this is one of the problems in india earlier wop population was said to be a problem. today it seems to be a monday us. >> overpopulation a bonus. >> and why is that, that is an interesting idea. is it because it means over a population and with a larger number of people
entering the middle class, their consumer demand will be intensified and enhanced and therefore it will promote economic growth on the part of -- >> i think it is a two-edged sword because on the one hand it gives you a tremendous, you have the largest working aged population by 2035. said to be in the demographic mix that you have all over the world a great sense of power if you might. at the same time you have to feed, you have to educate and you have to give jobs to all these people. and failing to do that becomes a major challenge and catastrophic. >> and catastrophic. so it's a two-edged sword. so if it is pursued correctly and dealt with correctly, it is an issue of tremendous power. earlier overpopulation
considered to be a curse. it's not so -- >> is it difficult too, many people poor, too many difficulties feeding people, finding shelter and all of those kinds of things? >> less so now. when the british left india we had famine. we were 350 million people. we don't have famines today with over a billion people. we have food rotting at times because it doesn't get to the right place at times. >> that's another place where technology can make a difference. >> the food is going to be one of the major challenges. >> but the transition from famine to productivity came through the green revolution which was technological own vacation which was breeding for drought resistant, pest resistant. were really done for the climate of india and pakistan in particular. and they led to feeding
billions. so we have been talking about what's the next generation of that. how would you feed the people of africa, for example. >> and what is the next generation of that? >> well, other kinds of new technologies. scuba rice which is rice that hibernates during flooding which going to be very important, because it's not only drought now, they're experiencing flood. but also new ways of really storing preserving and moving to market. there are people literally starving ten miles from food storage facilities in africa where food is rotting because there are no roads. there's no logistics to get things to market. so somehow we've got to work across the whole value chain and use each of the technologies but then you need government will as well. and we're seeing in many places around the world governments that had the will losing it and new governments coming into being that give us
confidence that maybe there's an opportunity. >> what's the philosophy of the-- what's the op rattive philosophy of the rockefeller foundation today in terms of who it gives to. because my impression is that it's evolved since you became president. >> so the challenge we seek to solve is that in this where periods where the world is changing so dramatic three things become problematic. you can't predict all the shocks so you have to build resilience, individual resilience, environmental resilience, systems resilience in order to rebound more quickly from those shocks. financially, the global financial crisis was a lack of financial resilience. and the second is you have to build nor equitable growth. this has been a period unlike any other in modern history where every countries that's grown has grown more inequitiably. that is true in the developing world and it's true in countries in the
developed world. >> in other words, the rich got richer and the poor -- >> in every country. we focused on ourselves in the u.s. but it is true around the world. the last country for whom it was not true is brazil and now even brazil has shifted. so how do you create opportunities for poor and more vulnerable people whether they're vulnerable by gender or vulnerable by religion. and create what in a low growth environment may be even more of a challenge. it's one thing to say you want more equitable growth when everything is blowsoming. and another when we're seeing slowing all around the world including developing world countries that were on fire like india and china. so that problems were more difficult. >> so you are grinding out and you need to really try to transform the systems. i think that's what we're finding that's different. if you pick one thing to work on within that system, you're never going to solve
these big problems. so what's the right policy change. how do you engage the private sector. what's the innovation and technology that you use. and then how do you get the people themselves more engaged. this isn't any more about doing things for people or even, certainly not two people. it's really more doing things with people. people around the world want to be part of the solution, not just part of the problem. >> how do you see the global economy today? >> a little grim. europe and the u.k. i think are really going to face a hard recovery. it's going to take a lot of effort. a lot of sacrifice, a lot of pain. the united states, i think, will in my view going to recover faster. >> than europe. >> than europe and part of it is going to be the innovativeness. >> uh-huh. >> that's embedded in the united states and the sense of entrepreneurship.
asia on the other hand is just the opposite. asia is in fact a part of the world that still is growing, opportunities are there and the same holds true for africa. and to some extent certain parts of latin america. so you have got a shift of industrial activity, economic growth, moving to the so-called south south areas. and the western world which has shunned dirty industries, moved them over to less developed countries, starting to grapple with increasing protectionism or the sounds of protectionism. and the asian, asian countries may be finding more trade between
themselves then they did before. >> speaking of that, what is the relationship with china today, between the indian government and the chinese government. >> it's not adversarial but it's not the best. >> what's the conflict? >> i don't know that there is a-- that there is a real conflict. in 1962 there was a physical conflict between the armies of the two countries which has never gone away. i think there's a concern on the part of india that china is trying to dominate the region. and there's an equal concern on the part of china that india is trying to dominate the region. >> or china feels that india and the united states are trying to knit together groups that will be opposed to china's growth. >> that's right, that's right. >> and china has, of course, been assisting and arming pakistan which is like a red
flag to india. and it already makes it a second, second-class enemy. but otherwise, you know, china has-- china has never done anything adversarial to india and india hasn't-- i think there has been more concern about china, china's economic strength overpowering india which we really don't see. >> yeah. is it a big market for you. china is the biggest auto market in the world today. biggest auto market in the world and you sell cars. >> we haven't gone into china at all because -- >> because? >> for cars. you don't sell cars in china. >> no. because why? >> well, two things. first of all it's very difficult country to sell
from outside. >> you have to manufacture inside china. >> now-- which we know have acquired the setting of a plant in china because china wants those cars. >> jaguar and land rover. >> but not tata motors. >> why is that. because they think that tata motors will be more competitive with their own manufacturers? >> no, i think if you look at what china has done in the automotive area in a short period of time, they have produced cars which, in fact, exceed what india did in the same period time. we will now be sourcing sub assemblies from china for indian cars. automatic transmission. >> and will you assemble them in india. >> or assemble them in china? >> no, we will buy things like automatic transmission. >> right, right, right. >> things that india doesn't yet produce.
>> at prices which are unbelievable which will help us. but there are, in fact, now indian companies that are importing we're not doing this but there are some small companies that are doing this. so china is the largest automaker and auto market in the world and it's going to get even more predominant than it is today. >> you also own the-- they had a terrible tragedy. what are the scars from that human tragedy, people lost their lives. >> there are no manuals no instructions on what to do
and saved 2, 300 guest lives in those three days. and some of them lost their own. it was a horrible time. i'm afraid mum buy was not prepared for-- mumbai was not prepared for what took place. i'm not so sure they are prepared today if there were, god forbid, another attack. and there were absolute examples of heroism, courage from people that you would never have expected. >> and what have you insisted that be done. i mean what has been your own urgency about this. you want to rebuild it and make it whole again and both in terms of the psychic wounds as well as the physical wounds renewing the taj has removed the physical evidence of the scars.
to rebuild and not to let somebody knock you down. so even if the first day the feeling was brick by brick we will rebuild what has been knocked down and it just happened. >> it is a remarkable story. >> it's resilience. >> there has always been a relationship between india and -- >> the foundation has always been interested in asia. >> and china as well. >> rose: rockefeller told me went to china when he was 11 years old,ic that is like the 20s. >> an thailand. so rockefeller built peking union medical college which is the first western medical school in china. rockefeller at the same time built the first nursing school in india. they already had a pretty good medical school. and so this notion that this was a foundation, a family that really believed that even then a hundred years ago which was a pretty amazing point of view, that
americans had to reach out to the world, understand the world and be touched by it. and until the martial plan rockefeller was giving more foreign aid than the u.s. government isn't that extraothers. giving more aid than wrb. >> really transformed both how foreign aid was done and also made philanthropy move aside and try to figure out what it was going to do. but we were always looking at asia. and china was going through so many different periods. india was going through so many different periods. we were moving in and out of offices there depending what the government was doing, and whether we were welcome or not. two very different countries with very different principleses about how they are operating that really are, even though it feels like slowing to you, to us
it feels like there is a growth engine of the region. by they're doing thifern things. >> look into sow up natural resources. >> definitely. >> the extractive industries are exploding as a result. but there are also putting in hard infrastructure. so the food that was rotting in the grain eries now is able to move along roads. >> and building infrastructure in order to make their own business purposes. >> good and bad. >> yeah. you worry about china? >> i'm not worried. i wish we could find a way to be ally its with china. >> do you worry about china as a nation and does india worry about china. >> india does worry about china. i would prefer to use china
as a very strong ally to forge a relationship with china which would be a sustaining one. and i think it could be done. >> rose: su have appointed your successor or whatever you did. >> yeah. >> a successor is in place. >> yes. >> as someone obviously who you wanted to come. so what is your life going to be like now? how are you going to spend your days? >> i have thought about that. first of all i think everybody goes through a period where you say you want to have the time to do things you, that you never had the chance to do. and part of that will be to do nothing but that won't last very long. so i haven't thought through, i'm going to continue to be the chairman of the foundation. >> right. >> i will focus on i will
focus on rural development. conservation of water and my most visible goal is to do something in nutrition to children in india, and pregnant mothers because that would change the mental and physical health of our population in years to come. >> is that on your agenda. >> absolutely. it's critical, it is. we're going to spend an awful lot of money on curing diseases when we really ought to be working on prevention. and we have all of this opportunity through nutrition, through early forth mi-- forthification through ma terrible health to really do so much prevention that ultimately is the best solution for everyone. so we have a lot of ideas we've been cook up. >> but it really is on the-- it has become, because of the rockefeller foundation, the gates foundation and so many other
people, we understand how lives can be changed and saved, young lives. >> yeah. >> by nutrition, by access to medical care t to all those kinds -- >> we are seeing a good trend both in maternal, the reduction of maternal death during pregnancy and child. it is these early interventions. but whether all of the other problems of poverty emanate from problems in health. so if a family doesn't have health care, the girl is pulled out of school no matter how much you fight about girl's education and she's brought to work because the family needs to pay the bills. if a kid doesn't live to a certain age it's because you didn't intervene early enough and yet the cost is enormous to society. so we know where, we know how. now we need the combined will of so many people to really get in there and make a difference at those early, early years. >> you have built this
company you go it is if the only an indian company t is a global company. what you have missed, what have you not done that you wanted to do? >> perhaps internally i've not been able to create the truly open, flat, transparent organization that i had hoped we could do. i think we haven't succeeded in really embracing the customer as well as we could, although we have moved a great deal. we were traditionally a manufacturing company in a seller's market. but and i think we haven't as a group been able to touch the levels of the population that i had hoped, the nanois one example.
but serving the bottom of the pyramid for india, thinking of how to make products that are affordable to that segment of the population, i think, is a real challenge. and an ongoing challenge. and we haven't succeeded in being innovative enough to do that. >> and you want your legacy to be? >> i think what i want the legacy to be one be to say that we achieved the growth and the prosperity that the group has had with the value system and ethical standards that we've tried to retain. and not succumb to the pressure its of subjective pressures that exist to get things done. >> and india's cultural heritage, you know, is it in a good place and in terms of
an understanding and respect for what that country means and where it stands within its own pride and its sovereignty. >> i think it does. >> its heritage. >> i think there are app rations but i think the culture of india and the pride in india is there. i think it needs to be ig vit-- ignited or reignited again. there's a little too much self-serving-- that have cent in. but i think the culture of india is very strong. and the pride of the people is very great. >> there is a sense that i have, i mean everybody goes to india, comes away with a couple of deep impressions. number one is sort of the richness of the heritage. there's always people come back. and they're moved by india in a very special way.
it continues to be that way. there's something about india that touches people. the other thing that seems to me is that you get the sense that somehow as rocky as democracy is, but if you look at all these combination of things that india has within it, sort of the opportunity to explode, you know, to become even more of a powerful figure. >> i really do believe deep down inside, i do believe that that is the true potential. i've often felt that the indian tiger has not been unleashed. >> exactly what i'm trying to say, yes. >> to you have here at this table again say great honor for me so congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> and to you, judith, as always. >> thank you, sir. >> we'll be right back. jane har mann is here, she served nine terms in congress reptsing california's 36th districtment during that time she became the ranking
democrat on the house intelligence committee. her long career in public service has made her a powerful voice on national security and public policy issues. she left congress in february 2011 to become president of the woodrow wilson center. i'm pleased to have her here at this table, welcome. and it's about time. several things before we get to egypt where you went and observed. >> yes, twice. >> rose: we'll come back to that and its important election. so sydney harman, how long you were married. >> almost 31 years. >> rose: you became a, what did you say, a great something -- >> i became a step great grandmother a few weeks ago. i'm very proud of it. >> rose: he had children from prior marriage, you had children from prior marriage. >> we had children stock so i'm an octomom. >> this is the guy who died at. >> 92 but his age was inverted am. he was really 29. >> rose: and he realized he had a terminal illness how long before he died? >> about five weeks. >> rose: five weeks. he walks in to see a doctor
and five weeks later he is dead. >> random blood test, comes back, acute myeloid leukemia. first they said 4 to 6 weeks then they said are you older, it will progress slower. but obviously he wasn't old ever, he was younger. and the progression was mild. he had his full faculties until the day he died. and it was an extraordinary farewell it was an extraordinary -- >> you had time to live with him knowing he was dying soon. >> yes. didn't think it was that soon. he didn't think it was that soon. and i think in some way, as he got older but he stayed so healthy both of us thought it might never happen. he might escape it. >> beyond his energind his curiosity wa, did you love most about him? >> well, those are pretty impressive. >> rose: yeah, they are pretty good. >> yeah. his vitality. nothing got him down. he loved sports. he loved reading. he recited poetry. he loved children. he was ever a magician. >> rose: he made a fortune. >> yeah, he did. >> "newsweek" at the end and he was fascinated by it.
and he saved it if you asked tina brown and barry diller now they will tell you he saved "newsweek". >> rose: because he was prepared to go in there and buy it to understand what it could possibly be. >> bought it for a buck as he put it plus a few liabilities. >> rose: a few debts. >> but if he mr. there now, they say this, he would have creative ideas about better ways to do the business model and he would be all over it. >> rose: and what made this a great marriage? >> two type as. >> rose: look how lucky she was to have me. >> of course that is what he would say. and i was 27 years younger. and he was asked early on don't you have any sense of mortality. and his answer would always be yup, if janie can't make t she can't make it. >> rose: there is this too, egypt what is going to happen now that we have firstician lambist president, first nonmilitary guy, in a country in which islamists all over the world are looking saying hooray and the military is saying we're still in control?
>> i don't know. i think they don't knows what's going to happen. but i am an optimist. why would i have stayed in congress for nine terms if i weren't an optimist. i think there is a way forward. and i smell a deal. remember, this is a week after the election finished. egypt kind of went dark for a week. and i just what have to believe. >> tring to figure out without won. >> well, they countsed that a lot faster in the first presidential race. i was there. they knew who the winners were in a few days and expected to know them last thursday. so my sense of this is that somebody talked to somebody and there is a way forward at least that the staff, the supreme council of the armed forces and muslim brotherhood have found some form of coexistence. and that is not enough to make israel succeed. obviously there has to be buy in. >> make israel succeed, make
egypt succeed. >> to make egypt succeed there has to be buy-in from other folks. but morsi has-- the victor, the muslim brotherhood vickar has resigned his membership in the muslim brotherhood. he said will form a unity cabinet there have been reports that is why i mentioned israel, that he is saying that he will review the peace treaty with israel. but that was denied. these alleged statements. >> rose: that he is to the reviewing it. >> no, his alleged interview with some iraqi-- iranian newspaper has been denied by his spokesman. so it is not clear what will do there. but the statements all along including from the muslim brotherhood have been that the treaty with israel perhaps reviewed or not will stand. and i think it is imperative that it does stand if israel, if egypt wants to renew its tourism business. i think people will stay away. >> does it have much role or
influence as these governments try to consider the consequences of the arab spring? >> i think we can help shape events. we're not in charge. not at all. this arab awakening, i wouldn't call it a spring, is generous, a bottom up movement across arab countries and it will affect other countries in the world too. i even think this, the sit-ins we had in our parks last fall had something to do with it. >> rose: russia had been some consideration as whether the arab spring has come to moscow. >> i think the arab spring may have come to moscow. it is the pushback of people who have been repressed for years by their governments. they won't take it anymore. at the wilson center someone called it the birth of the arab citizen. and i think there's a lot of truth to that. >> rose: also helped enormously by social media. and social media is every bit as prevalent in russia
or china as it is in the middle east. >> well, yes. there is even some social media in north korea now, would you believe. but the irony is at least as i see it, that social media and young people are really good at toppling governments. >> but not very good at governing. >> to the very good at putting together the political skills to participate in what comes next. they haven't even had a chance to govern yet. egypt has been trying to stand up a government for a year half. and a lot of these young people were defeated in the first round of parliamentary elections and then stayed home. >> rose: the irony of this is that the muslim brotherhood by was not enthusiastic, did not jump in with the first stirrings of the arab spring in cairo, yet now they are the beneficiaries themselves. because they had organization. >> that's right, that's right. something i learned early on in my political careers is you've got to be organized.
money, message and machine. you've got to have it all. and a lot of these wonderful idealistic young people didn't have certainly the first part or the last part. they had a message but the message was our current rulers are bad. the message wasn't we have the skill sets to build a new government. >> rose: i'll come back to foreign policy but money and message is one thing. the republicans seem to believe they have going for them this time around in the presidential election. >> yeah, maybe. this inter minutable election. i don't know. i think in the end, well,. >> rose: they've got the money. >> well, democrats have money too. >> rose: but this is the first election where it's not 2008 again. i mean it really is different. if you look, just look at what super pacs can do. >> yes. but there can be democratic with a big d super pacs too. >> rose: sour's not worried. are you here to say democrats have nothing to worry about in terms of
money that is to the going to be a factor. >> i'm worried about all the money on both sides. i think that deprives most people of free speech. a few people have big free speech and most people have no speech. i think that is pernicious. citizened united was a longley decided case. i think people won't really tune into this until september and then it will be a referendum on the economy. and if the economy is getting stronger obama wins. and obama wins. and if it's getting weaker, obama doesn't win. >> rose: that's it. >> that's what i think. foreign policy polls at 3% interest. it appalls me to think that everyone is tuned out. especially when how the world goes has so much affect on our economy. i don't know that people get this. if the euro-- the eurozone falls or the euro, grease goes further, further into the tank. >> rose: or there is a contagion into spain or italy. >> and four or five countries drop out. there will be a huge impact
on u.s. banks and on u.s. economy. >> rose: and u.s. exports and chinese exports and chinese technology. >> absolutely. >> rose: where do you think our own intelligence service, the cia and national security agency and others are doing today. i mean are they up to speed. have what criticisms you have of them coming from your oversight function gotten better? >> well, they are doing better. i think of course i'm totally objective but one of the changes that really helped was a intelligence reform which congress enacted and george w. bush signed in 2004. totally bipartisan effort to change what had been a 1947 dismodel. we passed the basic pillar for our intelligence and defense agencies in 1947, geared against the soviet union. and we never changed it until after 9/11 when it was clear that one, the soviet union ended in 1989 but two, the threats were completely
different against our country. so the reform set up a joint command structure called the office 6 the directioner of national intelligence, across 16 intelligence agencies. and the idea is not to build a bureaucracy but to leverage their strength. and our intelligence capability is better. our national intelligence estimates which are the way we assess what is going on in different countries are much stronger than they were. and i think it would be much harder to make the mistake that we made on what is the destruction in iraq so we're better. the agencies are doing better. what we're missing is a very clear legal framework around our post 9/11 policies. we've never been able to do that because congress doesn't work very well. and because it's very easy. >> what legal framework dow want to see? >> i want to see in a way that everyone can understand, not just in our country, but in a way that the narrative of its u.s. can be clear,
exactly what are our interrogation and detention policies are, how we feel about using offensive weapons, various kinds of weapons, drones, for example. i was very pleased when john brennan who directs kounts terrorism efforts in the white house came to the wilson center to acknowledge for the first time that we use drone os fencively. and to say not about specific operations. >> everybody knows that. >> well, everybody knew that but nobody said that. here's how we use them. here are the -- >> they took-- every al qaeda member that they get. >> but charlie if it is all wink wink nod nod and if it isn't clear when we use them, when we don't use them, then the narrative against us is we're an outlaw country. >> rose: what do you think of the president who is courting-- according to the "new york times" is choosing the targets. >> well, i don't know the truth of that. and i wouldn't comment if i did know the truth of that. but i think those operations have to be done very carefully and from what i do know, and i know a fair
amount about this, the press reports are exaggerated. and these are very, very careful weapons used only when we identify specific targets and we feel that there's an imminent threat to the united states and no other possibility of capturing those targets. that's what john brennan said if public at the wilson center. >> rose: so only use drone when there's no other way. >> the risk of drones obviously is that it may no not-- there may be collateral damage. >> well, i think collateral damage is minimized. the risk of drones is not the collateral damage t is more the narrative that the u.s. is operating-- invading sovereignty, operating this program that no one can explain and so on and so forth. jimmy carter has an op ed that's very critical of this. jimmy carter in whose white house i worked and who was kind of the father of our human rights policy. but i think there are times, i defend our drone program there are times when the only way to protect u.s.
interests is to use a weapon like this because some people are in places where we cannot be. >> as far as a former member of congress with an influence on the intelligence committee, if someone came to you and said we know whether al-zawahiri is and we will take him out with a drone you would say go ahead, you have my permission, even though it would not be required? >> well, i wouldn't be an authority to give permission but if are you asking me should we go after zawahiri my answer is yes. we should go after zawahiri, capture him if we can. that would be preferable. but if we cannot, if the circumstances are such that the people in the chain of command view him as a direct threat to u.s. interest, i think we have to do what we can to prevent him from operating. >> dow worry about the time that our enemies have the drone capability? >> that will come, sure i do. and i don't think that in the long-term we can play
whack-a-mole against this problem. i think the way to solve the terror threat against us is to win the argument. and how do we win the argument? we have to live our values. we have to show kids who are about to decide whether to strap on a suicide vest that if they don't do that, we are helping to provide opportunity in their countries for them to get a decent education to get a job. >> rose: how are we doing in that argument? >> not so well. not so well. i mean it is very disturbing to learn about the poor education systems in so many countries in the middle east that teach false use, for example, of israel. but also don't teach kids any form of education that would give them skills to get jobs in the global economy. technology skills, for example. when i was just in egypt it was interesting. i met some egyptians who were doing angel investing in egypt. imagine that. in young companies, stuff that we hope is going on in
new york city as we're talking to each other. but they, of course said it depends on whether egypt is stable going for and whether we can find kids to filled jobs that going to be created. well, egypt going to be stable. can we find the jobs. that's up to egyptians but why i'm little bit hopeful is their form of government will have to include islamist parties. i think that's okay. having islamist, people with islamist belief inside the tent playing by democratic rules with a small d is much better than having al qaeda outside the tent trying to blow up the tent. >> rose: it will be interesting to see how islamist governments handle power and whether power and governance will change them? >> i think it will. again if democracy survives, just like in ours, elections will be a referendum on their economies. egypt's economy right now is a shambles. can this new government whatever it will look like fix the economy?
who knows. if it doesn't, i predict we'll have a government after that. and i predict to fix it will have to force some unity. the coptic christians who are worried that they are going to be discriminated against are some of the drivers of the egyptian economy right now. and if they're forced out who are the drivers going to be? >> there is also this, iran. as you know i did this thing with the secretary of state and jim baker at the state department. and there was a spirited conversation about iran. and former secretary baker said if sanctions fail and in fact iran is about to get a nuclear weapon, assuming they had capability and a weapon, and a missile to deliver it, then you had to take it out. i then asked the secretary and she sort of didn't really say. but that seems to be the opinion of the president as well. >> the president essentially said that he said we're not if favor of containment.
and he basically said at apac i was there a few months ago that he has a red line. and he will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. >> and if sanctions fail. >> yeah. >> and if-- fails. >> so sanctions are about to be -- >> racheted up now. and iran has basically stalled in the talks that occurred in moscow. it's going to be interested because egypt may now recognize iran and we'll see. >> are you in favor of the assassination of iranian scientists? >> i'm in favor of appropriate measures to slow or stop iran's nuclear program. >> so that would do it, you would be in favor? >> i am not going to comment on anybody's covert activities. >> all right. are cia now seems to be no more than covert activities. seems to be a player militarily today. they go where others don't go. >> there are two sets of
laws, title 50 and title 10. and the cia does activities in one area and the department of defence does activities in another area. the interesting part, of course s that leon panetta who is our secretary of defense was until recently our cia director. david petraeus, the highest decorated general is now cia director. so there are some synergies which is i think actually a good thing. but again come back to this. these activities are important. the president has embraced a counterterrorist approach against the threats that we face. i'm for that. i was not a fan of the counterinsurncy stuff which i done think worked in either afghanistan or i think long-term in iraq. this is good. but we need to use all of our tools. and as bob gates the last dod secretary said, that means beefing up the state department.